Search form

If You Value Privacy, Resist Any Form of National ID Cards

The Chinese telecom company ZTE is helping the Venezuelan
government build a network for its “Fatherland Card,”
an ID card that is being increasingly linked to government
services. The Fatherland Card provides access to troves of personal
information including political affiliation, medical history,
employment status, and much more. What was ostensibly designed to
provide millions of Venezuelans with documentation required for
opening a bank account or voting has morphed into an ID card
program ideal for authoritarian government.

It’s distressing, but not surprising, that the Chinese and
Venezuelan governments are colluding to further erode their
citizens’ privacy.

Defenders of E-Verify and
REAL ID may claim that worries that these systems will develop into
a national ID are overblown and that civil libertarians are being
hyperbolic. But history is on the side of those sounding the
alarm.

In the U.S., we’re nowhere close to living under the
degree of surveillance seen in Venezuela or China. Nonetheless, we
must remain vigilant for calls for increased data gathering and
national ID systems that put our privacy at risk, especially those
calls that are couched in the name of immigration enforcement and
anti-terrorism efforts. These ID proposals, if left unchecked, will
diminish the freedom to travel and work, and expose more details of
our private lives to the authorities.

Americans have historically been resistant to the kind of
compulsory ID card schemes seen around the world. Yet before
Trump’s presidency there were bipartisan calls for ID cards as a
tool of immigration enforcement. In March, 2010 Sens. Chuck
Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., took to the pages of
The Washington Post to argue for a national biometric
ID card as a means to tackle illegal immigration. Fortunately,
Sens. Schumer and Graham failed to get their proposed mandated ID
passed into law.

Yet ID schemes already exist in the U.S., and proposals for
government data-gathering only add to a growing identity
infrastructure framework.

One such scheme the current administration supports is E-Verify,
a voluntary Department of Homeland Security system designed to
allow employers to check the employment eligibility of new hires.
E-Verify is an
inefficient and expensive system that should be scrapped.

Yet despite the problems associated with E-Verify, many of those
calling for crackdowns on illegal immigration are also pushing to
mandate the system nationwide. Such calls pose a significant risk
to our privacy. To fix E-Verify, DHS would need more information,
perhaps including biometrics such as fingerprints and facial images
related to U.S. citizens.

ID systems are not only discussed in the context of immigration
enforcement. The threat of terrorism also provides fertile ground
for national ID proposals. REAL ID, created in 2005, outlines
federal requirements for state drivers licenses in order for them
to be accepted by agencies such as the Transportation Security
Administration.
According to DHS, REAL ID enacts the 9/11 Commission report
recommendation that the federal government “set standards for
the issuance of sources of identification.” In order to be
REAL ID compliant, states must not only adhere to federal standards
but also
share information included on drivers licenses on a national
network.

Although some states initially rejected REAL ID,
every state is now complying with at least some portions of the
system. While the federal government can’t directly coerce
states into compliance, it can provide plenty of incentives.
According to the TSA, drivers licenses that aren’t REAL
ID compliant will not be considered a valid form of ID from October
1, 2020, onwards.

Defenders of E-Verify and REAL ID may claim that worries that
these systems will develop into a national ID are overblown and
that civil libertarians are being hyperbolic. But history is on the
side of those sounding the alarm.

Shortly after the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935,
the use of Social Security numbers was limited to the
identification of earnings covered by the new program. Since 1935,
the use of SSNs
has spread beyond government and into the private sector,
regularly being used by credit bureaus, hospitals, and educational
institutions.

We should therefore be wary when advocates for biometric Social
Security cards, mandatory E-Verify, and REAL ID tell us the use of
these systems will be limited. As current ID systems expand they
could easily morph into a de facto national ID scheme, with
compliance required for air travel, gun purchases, banking, and
much more.

The United States is a long way from implementing the degree of
surveillance and authoritarianism seen in Venezuela and China.
Nonetheless, plenty of immigration and terrorism-related proposals
and schemes risk setting us down the slippery slope towards an
identification system that’s a national ID in all but
name.